Or just 'fantasy' instead of 'big fantasy'? Steampunk novels I would consider fantasy (not science-fiction which I take to involve aliens or space in some capacity) and can involve entirely fictitious worlds. Sometimes they don't and involve alternative histories - but that is straying more into sci-fi for me. Genre fictions almost always have specific off-shoots that need more specific names. You can call, say, Poe or something 'horror' but it isn't the psychological horror of House of Leaves, or the gothic horror of Dracula or Frankenstein, though Frankenstein is also our only Romantic novel. This labeling isn't always tight, but they help I suppose.
I quite like Rod Serling's definition: "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science fiction is the improbable made possible." I certainly wouldn't limit sci-fi to space and aliens; there is a vast amount of sci-fi that has neither. Likewise there is fantasy that has both, Star Wars springs to mind.
I call Twilight "fantasy" but it is still useful to have a term to distinguish it from fantasy with significant worldbuilding or an epic story. Interesting that you call steampunk fantasy -- I call it scifi. It uses technology to justify its own possibilities. (Which does not mean it is not fantasy.) Fair enough. I guess Tolkienesque fantasy deserves a label if for no other reason than its popularity. My effort here has been to show just how specific of a subgenre it is.
That's a good quote. Star Wars, can you call that fantasy? I'm not sure I would. But, these labels are never tight or perfect I suppose. Fair enough. Like an Alternative History novels like Man From High Castle, I suppose the line between what is fantasy and what is sci-fi there is so blurry that any distinction is just a difference of opinion. Like the film Alien, is it a sci-fi film or a horror film, so yeah. I forget where that point was going. Yeah, I get it. You are right - it's a very specific area of fantasy. It does seem to be very popular, doesn't it?
All of the science is hand-waved and in its place there is magic and wizards. That is fantasy in my book.
I thought the sort of fantasy that you've defined as big fantasy is more frequently known as epic fantasy? Epic fantasy is certainly a recognised sub genre. It might get confused with high fantasy due to the massive amount of published work that falls into both categories.
Probably not, at least not the majority of the stories. The boundaries of the sub genres can get a bit fuzzy, but not many of the Discworld books have what I'd call an epic storyline. A lot of them are smaller stories, that have little impact on the wider world, for example some of the Vimes based books are murder mysteries in a fantasy setting. It's got the strong world building element, but I don't think that makes it epic fantasy on its own. One thing that I can't find a well established term for, is fantasy works set in an invented world. That would include most of high fantasy, epic fantasy, swords and sorcery and some hard to pigeonhole things like Discworld.
@Swiveltaffy, @daemon. I'm going to answer both your questions in one explanation. I think there's a difference between "escapism" and "enlightenment." After reading The Sun Also Rises, by Hemmingway, I know more about Bull fighting than I did before. I am enlightened. After reading Romeo and Juliet, I am moved by the immaturity and irrational decisions of two passionate youths. I am enlightened. From Infinite Jest, of which I have not finished, I know more about Tennis than I had ever hoped to. I am enlightened about tennis. What I learn doesn't have to be about something physical. It can be a feeling in the pit of the stomach, something spiritual like Pale Fire or Lolita. It can be pure art. But in all above examples, I am somewhat engaged with reality as we know it, and when I have finished the novel, I have learned something through a fictional experience. To me a fictional experience that teaches (emotionally or intellectually, and again, the lesson does not have to be something you can define in words) it is enlightening. An amusing work of fiction, like something by Wilde, still counts as an enlightening experience, because I am being intellectually stimulated. Now, when we move to any fictional experience that does not enlighten, but instead acts a vehicle to divert you from reality as know it, now are we talking about escapism. Obviously, this is a very complex spectrum. A fictional novel may provide enlightenment and escapism to mix extents. A novel about a super smart, hot, CIA agent, if it does not intellectually engage, will probably wind up being escapism. However, I'm only escaping from my reality as I know it, not as a collective reality as we know. CIA agents do exist. Maybe there are no CIA agents in the real world quite like in the thriller I'm reading,but there are parallels, and it is somewhat representative. In my humble opinion, "epic" or "high" fantasy, is at the very, very bottom of the spectrum. It is, in most instances, pure, unashamed, escapism. We can spend all night and day giving lofty criterion for what constitutes a fantasy, but if you go to the book store, and pick up a fantasy book at random, you and I both know what you are most likely to find. Epic or high fantasy is completely divorced from the real world. It involves beautiful settings and beautiful people. The characters are all important, and each of them has a special role and or skill. There is a clear defined enemy, and the protagonists will win. And there is always melodrama (which does not count as emotional enlightenment, by the way!) @daemon, that is how I define fantasy. And most people reading this thread, who write fantasy, are going, "yup, this is what I write." @Swiveltaffy I believe in reading for amusement(which is not escapism), enlightenment, intellectual or emotional stimulation. I do not believe most fantasy achieves any of this. As a kid, I read fantasy. Dragonlance. Wheel of Time. Song of Ice and Fire. Death Gate Cycles, lots of other crap I can't remember. Song of Ice and Fire and Lord of the Rings are the most famous because there is some context to the world as we know it. Those old men obviously knew a little a bit about history. Mervyn Peake, who wrote Gormenghast, was a genius, and it shows. There are some good works out there, although I personally believe you can do better than George RR. Martin if you're looking for intellectual stimulation. So now that we've gotten definitions out of the way. Am I against reading for escapism? For myself, absolutely. I want to spend my time in life lifting the veil, not burying my head in the sand. I personally believe there are important things in life and that there are unimportant things in life, and that escapism does nothing to aid in achieving the former. A little bit of escapism never hurt anyone, but honestly, there are so many more richer ways to relax, I'm not sure why I would opt for that. As for my opinion on others, its really not my place to say. I'm not a doctor. I also want to add, I think people use the word "invent" a little too liberally here. "Invent" implies ingenuity and creativity. In my humble opinion, most fantasies, especially the people talk about here, sound like the person who came up with it had their eyes closed and one hand off the keyboard. Another thing I want to add. Fantasy in theory is perfectly fine. Why not write a story about a man who dies, and finds himself on some higher plane of existence? Dante's works come to mind. Lord Dunsany writes beautiful prose. Fantasy is not inherently bad. I think it's sort of like a drug. Some drugs, if used wisely, can be great. Unfortunately, you have lots and lots of abusers. It winds up being a safehaven for escapism, rather than a vehicle for exploration and expansion of the mind (magical realism is probably closer to this).
Saying that, I've just done some more googling and some definitions of high fantasy only seem to define it as fantasy set in an invented world. I personally think of High Fantasy as having the definition that @Lemex gave it, but just like with the term 'Fantasy', different people seem to have different definitions.
@123456789 One cannot continually "lifting the veil". Many people spend large parts of their day struggling with physical and mental problems and often learning new ways to deal with them or absorbing the information needed to understand them. Fictional escapist literature, like other forms of entertainment serve a real and useful purpose, that of mental recreation and have always existed in one form or another, just like popular/folk music.
@123456789 : First, thanks for the long answer. I get so much attention! No, I actually rather agree with you on everything you said. However, while I personally do lecture myself about escapism, I don't think there is a problem with poking your head in the sand. Lifting too many veils gets rough, you know? I think escapism, at least for me, is an attempt to retreat, and while it is not the best of character and cowardly, depending how one cares to wax statues, I think people are allowed to be weak. I mean, if it's all meaningless, do what you can to not off yourself, right? No, but I pretty much agree with you. Also, to completely generalize beyond my knowledge: Yeah, a lot of fantasy blows, literarily.
That's true. You're right. That's why we need to try to judge the value of the work, the genre, whatever, and not the reader. I think that is the fairest way. The problem is when people get defensive about their favorite genre, sometimes I find myself making harsh comments. I'll try to get better :S I do, however, think it is good that young fantasy fans hear that older people have been there, have also been obsessed with fantasy, and have outgrown it. Right now we live in a very "live and let live," culture, which I think is great up to an extent. It's good to have a counterbalance, to know there's nothing wrong with pushing your comfort zone. I can tell you, that, in terms of writing, my progression has been thus. As a child, I thought of superhero type stories. Boy acquires ability to fly or morph into animals or control the elements. As a teenager, my thoughts ran more toward fantasy, and yes, it was all that dramatic crap. As a young adult, sci fi, and while I still do have some sci fi drafts on the back burner, as someone in my late twenties, I am currently working on novels set in the here and now. For me, personally, as I actually began to write, and not just beat off to the idea of writing, my writing naturally became more and more about expressing myself, and finding "truth in fiction." As this happened, the need for a fictional setting not only became unnecessary, but detrimental. Everyone is different, but from talking to you, I would not be surprised if you will be of a similar mindset, if you're not already.
Yes, I think it's best to separate the judgement of a work from those who enjoy it. In the sense, at least, of not reducing others. People getting defense of their favorite genre. Well. Here's the thing. This gets into a bigger question to me. If I see someone getting all into their stance about how Tolkien has a bigger phallus than Freud, I feel a few questions maybe should be asked before addressing this person. One, is me saying anything really gonna change anything, or it going to become a pissing about who's right? Because, who gives two shits about who is right. I will live my life, this other person will live their life. I'm not trying to reduce this to a "live and let live," but I think most decisions are circumstantial. However, if this person wants to be a "good" writer, or whatever, then they might need a dose of perspective and to be told to read and try to develop a perspective on literary matters, because Tolkein's pretty meh, in the scheme of things. So yeah, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but I'd try not to be rough either way. I completely agree about pushing comfort zones. Some people, though, I don't think need to be pushed. If all someone really only wants to write sword & sorcery orc slayer trilogies and they want to have some delusion about being great, well, part of me thinks they ought understand their situation, but damn, you know, there are times when I do understand my situation and I really don't want to anymore. So, maybe breaking their little delusion might do more harm than good, you dig? Maybe it won't. Maybe they'll realize their situation and become inspired to revolutionize something. I don't really know. What I do know: My Mom will come and talk to me about something, and I can see her misconceptions and inaccuracies from the moon, but I know that bringing any of them up only makes her feel bad, and it ain't like she's changing anyhow. Again, circumstantial, what have you, sorry for the blab. Our US culture may resent this idea, but some people just ain't much, but that's ok, even if they think that maybe they are. Compassion, compassion, knowing what fewer veils can do to some people. Sorry for the horse shit, again. But, true that people can't be too delusional. As far as this writing progression, I see some trends in my own self. However, I am strikingly lazy and a horribly hedonistic stack of cowardly refuse, so I still keep to my ideas more than not. However, I understand it for what it is, and don't think an idea is some gold or some such similar bull. Yeah, I had my fantasy trend, and I actually just recently watched DBZ, and I would still read a fantasy novel. I'm cool with escapism; my problem is a lack of balance. I don't drop my studies too much, though, just don't do them as I'd prefer. Yeah, but I want to write about those big things, like trying take up Pound's challenge of making it new. But I'm that shit-stack, so, go figure. ETA: I might still write something related to fantasy. I don't know. There's something about myth, and there's the question of whether realism is entirely where the human being exists. Something about Greek gods and sacrificial lambs like Christ, something outside the real that's still in the real. But this is really just the inexpressible side of human feelings and interactions. Point is, while I wouldn't write the fantasy being discussed here, I think there's something to it that could be mined for expressing something Other. ETAA: Sorry if this makes no sense; my head is in one of those places, if that make sense. #no
@123456789 As I understand, you identify a spectrum between "escapist" and "enlightening", and a work of fiction's position on this spectrum is determined by the effect it has on the observer. If it makes the observer more aware of real life, then it is more enlightening. If it distracts the observer from real life, then it is escapist. Maybe "escapist" and "enlightening" are mutually exclusive when you observe fiction, but not when I observe it. I have observed fiction that is as escapist as fiction can be (fantasy, cartoons, sitcoms, comics, you name it), and it has gotten me to think deeply about the human experience in the abstract, especially about different personalities, the way different personalities interact and form relationships, the many ways people seek purpose in life, the many things that can interest people, etc. I have also observed fiction that is as enlightening as fiction can be (classic literature, gritty crime drama, historical fiction, etc.), and I have needed to force myself to take a break from it (and even just from thinking about it) in order to focus on my own real-life responsibilities. So we are not disagreeing, just experiencing different things when we observe fiction. By our definition, "_____ is escapist" is meaningless; only "_____ is escapist to _____" can be meaningful, once you fill in the blanks with a title and the name of a person. Just note that there are others who experience fiction the way I do. If escapist fantasy enlightens them, then it is false that escapist fantasy is not enlightening. (Disproof by counterexample.) It is just not your taste. Likewise, it is unfair to new authors to say they are drawn to fantasy because they are not mature enough to write about the complexities of life. (I forget if you said that, but it has at least been implied several times in this thread.) There are new authors (like me) who are drawn to fantasy because it gives them interesting contexts in which to explore the complexity of life, and because it is a sandbox for any plot imaginable.
@daemon, Would it be fair to assume that more older individuals or more "enlightened" than younger individuals? After all, older people have lived longer. They've seen more and had more time to internalize. Additionally, the brain does not stop maturing till at least 25. If we assume that more older people are more likely to be enlightened, and, we know that younger people tend to flock toward fantasy more than adults, at least traditionally, can we not assume that fantasy probably is more escapism than enlightenment? I've read fantasy as a child, and it was for escapism. It strikes me as rather odd that fantasy would have such completely different effects on other individuals. Again, there is a difference between writing fantastic elements, and writing a story that takes place in a reality completely divorced from ours.
To the bolded paragraph. Yes, yes, yes! This is a great thing you brought up and I will respond to it later. For now, I want to address the bulk of this post. Have you heard of Laslo's hierarchy of needs? I believe in this. It's a developmental psychological theory, that more or less states that human beings want to satisfy each of these levels. As the pyramid suggests, one must first meet the needs of each stage one by one, from top to bottom. Thus, someone can not begin to worry about "Safety," which, by the way, includes a source of steady income, and general financial stability, also health, if they are drowning in a lake- physiological includes food, water, shelter, etc. I think that fantasy, or escapism, is very useful for those stuck on the "safety level." If your job sucks, and you're working twelve hours a day, or you are suffering from some physical condition, escapism is entirely understandable. I believe that somewhere in the third stage, escapism becomes less important, and by the fourth stage, completely unnecessary. This is based on the premise that most people want escapism either to distract from the second stage (safety: Example. My life sucks because I can hardly pay my bills, I wish I was in a less complicated place. This is understandable) or they want escapism as a substitute to achieving the fourth stage( esteem: Example. I suck because I am invisible and I can't do anything, I wish I was a knight slaying dragons. This is childish.) As a teenager, many of us lack esteem, and therefore escapism is understandable. I expect that most healthy people with supportive families and decent upbringings, once they reach adulthood, should begin to be moving up to at least the fourth stage, and begin to abandon their reliance on escapism. If we believe in accountability, and personally, I do, then it is up to those of us, who have had been blessed with the lower three stages (Example, I am a healthy young adult, with a loving family, and a decent education), to move on to higher levels of development. I'm not saying a little bit of escapism is bad, but I personally know individuals in their mid to late 20s, who have had all three basic levels of Maslow's needs handed to them, and spend their entire time living in a fantasy world. I'm not going to call these individuals bad people, but I am tempted to call them stunted.
I am vaguely familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs and understand to the extent that you have referenced it. I see that you're distinguishing escapism, also, relative to a certain practicality? In the sense, it is less reasonable for one to change their socioeconomic situation, instead of their inward image of theirself. While I don't exactly care for graphs and what not, it makes enough sense. Your idea of societal responsibility is interesting, and I agree with what you say, though I still try to temper it with the understanding that one must balance expectation with compassion. Not to say that you are disregarding the former. I am curious of your future post, regarding the bolded part.
You are making that false dichotomy again -- "escapism vs. enlightenment". There are people who observe fiction to escape, and then the character development or whatever ends up enlightening them anyway. If you are looking for a reason why "younger" = "more interested in fantasy" (assuming that is even true), then sure, maybe it is because fantasy is a shortcut to self-esteem. Or maybe it is because younger people have more active imaginations. Or both. Any explanation is convincing enough when you dress it up in psychological vocabulary. Instead of generalizing, how about we speak from experience? Is that triangle how you would explain your own experience? If so, then nice introspection. But in my experience, fiction is great because it stimulates the imagination, and it is a joy to be lost in thought. Where does that fit on that triangle? In the top layer? Anyway, fantasy best fulfills the purpose of fiction (for me) because it leverages not only fictitious human experiences, but also fictitious contexts of fictitious experiences in order to stimulate the imagination. I guess I have not yet lived long enough to become a data point in the "older = less interest in fantasy" trend, so I cannot speak for that. Also, if fantasy is a shortcut to self-esteem, then is highbrow fiction not a shortcut to self-actualization? If fantasy lets you pretend you have a lot to be proud of (being a knight who slays dragons), then does highbrow fiction not let you pretend you are a better person without actually making sacrifices to do the right thing, creating anything, solving any problems, treating people fairly, or accepting the facts in your life (just to list off the things at the top of that triangle)? In the grand scheme of things, all fiction is equal: you spend hours of your life sitting on your ass and staring at symbols on a page instead of applying yourself in the real world. Fiction will not fulfill any of your needs. The sooner we all admit that fact and embrace it, the sooner we can enjoy fiction for what it is -- an act of imagination -- without all the false pretense of becoming a better person. (And another thing about that triangle: are you really saying you must meet a lower need before you can meet a higher need? Does that mean someone who is chronically hungry, or chronically ill, or even celibate, cannot live in a safe home, cannot have strong relationships, cannot achieve big things, and cannot be a good person?)
I actually have responses to each of these points, all good points by the way, and I believe in the merit of my responses as much as you belive in yours, however I am going to refrain from giving them. I think at this point my opinions are fairly clear. If I go any further it will have to be derisive.
I also have a brilliant response to this post; however, on this occasion I will refrain from giving it as the brilliance of the response will no doubt shame everyone else in this thread.
